Download - Honolulu Rail Transit Project

PMOC REPORT 

OP 37 – Rail Fleet Management Plan 

(Review of March 2012 Rev. 01 Red-lined Draft) 

Honolulu Rail Transit Project 

Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART) 

City and County of Honolulu 

Honolulu, HI 

July 2012 (FINAL) 

PMOC Contract Number: DTFT60-09-D-00012 

Task Order No. 2: Honolulu 

Project No: DC-27-5140 

Work Order No. 3 

OPs Referenced: OP 37 

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., 501 North Broadway, St. Louis, MO 63102 

Tim Mantych, P.E., (314) 335-4454, tim.mantych@jacobs.com 

Lead Reviewer: Arun Virginkar, (714) 993-1000, virginkar.arun@va-inc.com 

Length of Time Assigned: Five Years (November 23, 2009 through November 22, 2014)

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. i 

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... i 

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1 

2.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 3 

2.1 PMOC Review Process ............................................................................................3 

2.2 FTA References .......................................................................................................4 

3.0 OVERVIEW OF RFMP DOCUMENT .......................................................................... 5 

4.0 PMOC FINDINGS, OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS ....................................... 6 

4.1 General Comments...................................................................................................6 

4.2 Specific Comments ..................................................................................................6 

5.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 14 

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 15 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Acronym List 

Appendix B: OP 37, Appendix B FMP Checklist – Grantee Compliance 

Appendix C: OP 37, Appendix C FMP Table of Contents – Grantee Compliance 


PMOC Report – OP 37 RFMP Review 


i

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART or “grantee”) is preparing an 

application for a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for implementation of a major capital 

initiative for constructing and activating the Honolulu Rail Transit Project (“Project”) for rail 

service in Honolulu. 

At the request of Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. 

(Jacobs) Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC) performed a follow-up review of 

the Rail Fleet Management Plan (RFMP) March 2012 “red-lined” draft submitted by the grantee, 

as part of the ongoing effort of the PMOC team’s oversight responsibility for the Project as 

related to the FTA’s grant process. The PMOC had performed an earlier evaluation of the 

RFMP draft dated April 2011 (with “red-lined” version of July 13, 2011). 

Currently, the grantee has begun the execution of the Core Systems Contract (CSC), which was 

awarded in early 2012 to Ansaldo Honolulu JV (Ansaldo). It includes procurement of rail 

vehicles, procurement & installation of systems equipment, and operation and maintenance of 

the vehicle fleet. Ansaldo’s vehicle supplier is its sister company AnsaldoBreda, which is 

headquartered in Pistoia, Italy and has a final assembly plant in Pittsburg, California. Much of 

the basis for the RFMP is dependent upon the Core System Contract provisions and Ansaldo’s 

proposed vehicle and operations &maintenance details included in its Best and Final Offer 

(BAFO).Implementation of Ansaldo’s contract is essential and critical to Final Design and 

construction, as the vehicle, systems design, and operations planning will dictate critical features 

of all other contracts. 

The PMOC utilized FTA Oversight Procedure (OP) 37 to perform the follow-up review of this 

RFMP update and followed a process that consisted of identifying references for assessment of 

the plan contents and performing as-needed analysis to validate calculations and claims made by 

HART in the RFMP. This report consists of PMOC’s follow-up review findings of the RFMP 

March 2012 “red-lined” draft. The major changes to the RFMP document are to address HART 

as the manager of the Honolulu Transit System. 

Per OP 37 reporting requirements in Section 7.0, our review findings, comments, conclusion and 

recommendations are presented in this report and in two appendices titled: 

• Appendix 1 – OP 37,Appendix BRFMP Checklist – Grantee Compliance 

• Appendix 2 – OP 37, Appendix C RFMP Table of Contents –Grantee Compliance 

PMOC’s review focused on the following objectives to assess whether: 

• The RFMP is generally complete in the description of the fleet management planning, 

and that it complies with the FTA guidelines. 

• The grantee has generally complied with OP 37 Appendix B and C requirements. 

• The RFMP is satisfactory to be accepted as a required deliverable for FFGA application. 

The PMOC reviewed this red-lined RFMP document to assess compliance with appropriate FTA 

Guidance and found the document generally followed FTA’s 8-step process for Operations Spare 

Ratio (OSR) computation. The PMOC noted that grantee has complied with OP 37 guidance, the 




1

majority of the PMOC previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed, and that grantee 

has agreed to update the remaining open items in the next revision of the RFMP. Our responses 

in this report are primarily to enhance the RFMP as it progresses through the construction phase. 

It will then require additional details to ensure collection of needed data or monitoring of the 

defined processes. 

The PMOC anticipates that the next revision of the RFMP would be available after the FFGA 

when the Core Systems Contractor (Ansaldo Honolulu Joint Venture) begins its work in earnest 

(i.e. within one year of initial Notice to Proceed). That revision should address and/or provide 

additional detail on the following topics: 

• Service operations and vehicle demand forecasting 

• Planned fleet Maintenance practices and management staffing that will be provided 

through CSC 

• Planned use of Maintenance Statistics and Maintenance Strategy as provided through the 

CSC 

• MSF functionality and vehicle availability 

In addition to providing additional detail in the areas noted above, the grantee should address, in 

the next update of the RFMP, PMOC’s comments as annotated in this report as well as those in 

“Appendix B:OP 37, Appendix B FMP Checklist – Grantee Compliance” of the PMOC’s report. 

In conclusion, this red-lined draft RFMP (Rev.01 dated March 2012) complies with the FTA 

guidance. The PMOC would recommend that this RFMP update be accepted as a deliverable for 

the FFGA application. 

The PMOC also recommends that a workshop be conducted with the grantee to discuss the 

details needed in the next update of the RFMP to ensure compliance during implementation of 

the Project. 




2

2.0 INTRODUCTION 

The Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART or “grantee”) is preparing an 

application for a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for implementation of a major capital 

initiative for constructing and activating the Honolulu Rail Transit Project (“Project”) for rail 

service in Honolulu. 

At the request of Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. 

(Jacobs) Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC) performed a follow-up review of 

the Rail Fleet Management Plan (RFMP) March 2012 “red-lined” draft submitted by grantee’s 

manager Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART), as part of the ongoing effort of 

the PMOC team’s oversight responsibility for the Project as related to the FTA’s grant process. 

The PMOC had performed an earlier evaluation of the RFMP draft dated April 2011 (with “redlined” 

version of July 13, 2011). 

Currently, the grantee has begun the execution of the Core Systems Contract (CSC), which was 

awarded in early 2012 to Ansaldo Honolulu JV (Ansaldo). It includes procurement of rail 

vehicles, procurement & installation of systems equipment, and operation and maintenance of 

the vehicle fleet. Ansaldo’s vehicle supplier is its sister company AnsaldoBreda, which is 

headquartered in Pistoia, Italy and has a final assembly plant in Pittsburg, California. Much of 

the basis for the RFMP is dependent upon the Core System Contract provisions and Ansaldo’s 

proposed vehicle and operations & maintenance details included in its Best and Final Offer 

(BAFO). Implementation of Ansaldo’s contract is essential and critical to Final Design and 

construction, as the vehicle, systems design, and operations planning will dictate critical features 

of all other contracts. 

2.1 PMOC Review Process 

The PMOC utilized FTA Oversight Procedure (OP) 37 to perform the follow-up review of this 

RFMP update and followed a process that consisted of identifying references for assessment of 

the plan contents and performing as-needed analysis to validate calculations and claims made by 

HART in the RFMP. This report consists of PMOC’s follow-up review findings of the RFMP 

March 2012 “red-lined” draft. The major changes to the RFMP document are to address HART 

as the manager of the Honolulu Transit System. 

Per OP 37 reporting requirements in Section 7.0, our review findings, comments, conclusion and 

recommendations are presented in this report and in two appendices titled: 

• Appendix 1 – OP 37, Appendix B RFMP Checklist – Grantee Compliance 

• Appendix 2 – OP 37, Appendix C RFMP Table of Contents – Grantee Compliance 

PMOC’s review focused on the following objectives to assess whether: 

• The RFMP is generally complete in the description of the fleet management planning, 

and that it complies with the FTA guidelines. 

• The grantee has generally complied with OP 37 Appendix B and C requirements. 

• The RFMP is satisfactory to be accepted as a required deliverable for FFGA application. 




3



Ratio (OSR) computation. 

2.2 FTA References 

In addition to FTA OP 37, which specifically provides guidance on the review of fleet 

management plans, FTA regulation and guidelines for the data to be included in the RFMP are 

provided in the following documents: 

• FTA Circular C5200.1A: Full Funding Grant Agreement Guidance 

• FTA Circular C9030.1D: Urbanized Area Formula Program: Grant Application 

Instructions 

• FTA Memorandum (1999) by Hiram Walker: “Guidance: Rail Fleet Management Plans”. 

FTA’s objective in issuing such guidance is to encourage the grantee to properly plan for and 

carry out the overall management of its vehicle fleet. It further states that the RFMP should 

address the key factors necessary to make effective decisions on equipment needs and future 

vehicle demand, including maintaining a spare ratio of rail cars based on industry “best 

practices” to avoid inefficient railcar investments. 

To effectively assess and monitor a grantee’s rail fleet management and performance, FTA 

requires the grantee to give a clear explanation of its rail system status in the past, present, and as 

projected in the near future in major areas, such as ridership, system description and expansion 

plans, service standards and load factors, passenger demand and peak vehicle requirements, 

details of existing and planned vehicle procurements, maintainability and reliability standards, 

train failure definitions and actions, and vehicle Demand/Supply Balance analysis including 

OSR. Each RFMP should consider a minimum timeframe of ten years from the date of the initial 

analysis. 




4

3.0 OVERVIEW OF RFMP DOCUMENT 

This draft RFMP update is composed of the following sections: 

• 1.0 Introduction – briefly describes the purpose of the RFMP and grantee’s objectives in 

defining the passenger service fleet development and maintenance. 

• 2.0 Abbreviations and Definitions – provides a listing of abbreviations and acronyms utilized 

in the plan as well as definitions of terms related to the fleet of railcars and car maintenance. 

• 3.0 Project Description – provides an overview of the planned system, including major 

elements, elevated alignment, planned and potential future extensions/expansion, station and 

guideway overviews, description of the revenue vehicles (including key parameters), and 

planned service hours and headways. 

• 4.0 Demand for Revenue Vehicles – describes (through the FTA recommended eight step 

process) the fleet size determination, and initial fleet procurement information including 

anticipated vehicle utilization and overhauls anticipated. 

• 5.0 Maintenance Plan – provides an overview of Maintenance philosophy, categorization of 

train failure definitions, a conceptual view of Maintenance strategy, summary intent for 

Preventive Maintenance (including pre-revenue, in revenue, periodic, overhauls, other 

systems), and Service Mode and Reliability Measures. 

• 6.0 Rail Vehicle Maintenance Facility – elaborates on the planned Maintenance and Storage 

Facility (MSF), including functional areas, a site plan, and MSF vehicle capacity. 

No appendices have been provided in this March 2012 draft RFMP. 




5

4.0 PMOC FINDINGS, OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS 

The PMOC had conducted a review of grantee’s initial Rail Fleet Management Plan (RFMP) 

draft dated April 2011 to assess compliance with appropriate FTA Guidance. The PMOC 

provided its findings in a June 3, 2011 PMOC report, which noted that the RFMP generally 

followed FTA’s 8-step process for OSR computation. However, that RFMP revision had several 

key topics with limited detail or cursory information and did not fully address guidance provided 

in FTA reference documents. Subsequent to that submission, the grantee submitted for PMOC’s 

review July 13, 2011 red-lined RFMP update, and followed up with conference calls between the 

PMOC and the grantee staff to resolve deficiencies. The PMOC noted in its July 2011 report 

those items that were resolved or the remaining items that grantee had agreed to update in the 

next revision of the RFMP. It should be noted that this was based on the assumption at the time 

that the Core Systems Contractor would be provided Notice to Proceed in November 2011, 

which did not happen. 

Since PMOC’s earlier reviews of the RFMP noted above, this report addresses PMOC’s review 

of the most current red-lined RFMP Rev 01, March 2012 update provided by the grantee. 

Upon review of this Red-lined RFMP update, the PMOC does not offer any new comments; and 

provides a comment-by-comment resolution of its previous comments, provided in the Final 

Report as transmitted to the FTA in November 17, 2011as annotated below in italics: 

4.1 General Comments 

(1) Suggest adding a page with signature blocks for author, approval, etc. for 

conformance verification, and a page for history of changes. 

Resolution: Grantee had previously complied. 

(2) A list of tables, charts, figures, exhibits, illustrations, etc. in the Table of Contents 

would be helpful. 


(3) Suggest providing an Executive Summary to summarize the plan organization, 

and other key topics/details. 

4.2 Specific Comments 

Resolution: Grantee had previously complied, but an Executive Summary does 

not appear in the March 2012 draft. 

Section 1 Introduction 

(1) Page 1-1, 1.1 Purpose, 1st paragraph – Optional O&M period should be 

explained. 

Resolution: Grantee has deleted this reference. 




6

Section 2 Abbreviations and Definitions 

(1) Page 2-1, 2.1 Abbreviations – The following terms are defined, but do not appear 

to have been used: MMIS, PM, QA, QC, TBD. 


(2) Page 2-1, 2.1 Abbreviations – The following terms are used, but not defined: 

O&M, BAFO, CSC, ADA, CCTV, HSBC, PVR (not used but should be defined 

as key in an RFMP), and OSR (not used but should be defined as key in an 

RFMP). 


(3) Page 2-1, 2.2 Definitions – The terms Fixed Signal and Right of Way are defined, 

but do not appear to have been used. 

Resolution: Grantee previously complied. 

(4) Page 2-1, 2.2 Definitions – The following terms are used, but not defined: Period 

#1, Period #2, Patronage, E-cars, M-cars, Load Factor, Minimum vs. Maximum 

Headway, AW2 (as well as AW0, AW1 and AW3 for clarity). 


Section 3 Project Description 

(1) Page 3-4, 3.0 – The term “dual lane track” is not a typical transit term (more 

appropriate for highways); suggest using “double track”. 


(2) Page 3-4, 3.0 – There is no statement as to the number of vehicles being procured 

for the initial system. 


(3) Page 3-4, 3.1.1 Planned Extensions – Suggest standardizing on capitalization of 

“System” vs. “system” to differentiate from the entire project versus a system 

element. 

Resolution: Grantee has generally complied. 

(4) Page 3-4, 3.1.1 Planned Extensions and Page 3-5, 3.1.2 Potential Future 

Extensions – Both sections describe future extensions and it is stated that they are 

not part of this RFMP update. However, the distinction between the two is not 

clear; aren’t all of these potential expansions and extensions Is the distinction 




7

that some are in planning and some are just ideas Perhaps, these sections could 

be combined 

Resolution: Grantee had previously explained satisfactorily. 

(5) Page 3-5, 3.2 Stations – Use of platform screen doors should be explained. What 

is the impact on vehicles and vehicle operation 


(6) Page 3-6, Table 3-1, Vehicle Key Parameters – Please confirm that parameters 

listed in the table are of the actual vehicle proposed by the selected CSC 

contractor; if not update the table as appropriate to provide actual vehicle 

parameters. 


(7) Page 3-7, 3.5 Service Hours and Headways – Please confirm that Service Hours 

and Headways description is of the actual operations plan proposed by the 

selected CSC contractor; if not update it as appropriate. 

Resolution: Grantee had previously explained satisfactorily. 

(8) Page 3-8, 3.5 2 nd paragraph – What is the basis for the statement: “Choices in 

service headways are guided by the fact that more frequent service has a greater 

influence on patronage than other operating strategies (such as less frequent 

headways with longer trains)” Must be clarified. 


Section 4 Demand for Revenue Vehicles 

(1) Page 4-9, 4.1 Fleet Size, Step One – Peak Passenger Demand – 

a) Explain what is meant by “iterative process”. 

b) Please identify the specific “travel demand forecasting model”. 

c) Explain “Travel Demand Forecasting Model Boards Reports”. 

d) Table 4-1, AM Peak hour travel demand Forecast – Suggest adding PM Peak 

Hour travel demand forecast for a ready reference and confirmation that AM 

peak (East) would be the driving demand for service. Also, reference how 

many hours in the peak period were used. 


(2) Page 4-9, Table 4-1, AM Peak Hour Travel Demand Forecast – It should be noted 

that Section 3.5 Service Hours and Headways shown on Page 3-8 mention 4.5 

minute headways in 2019, which would yield only 4,240 pphpd with two car 

trains versus 6,429 pphpd. Please clarify the discrepancy. 




8


(3) Page 4-9, 4.1 Fleet Size, Step Two – Passenger Loading Standard – Is Comfort 

Loading of 159 passengers (32 seated + 127 standees) a new load standard, 

different from AW 2 load of 191 passengers (32 seated + 159 standees) Please 

clarify and explain how this standard was developed for this new start system. 


(4) Page 4-9, 4.1 Fleet Size, Step Three – Run Time – 

a) Page 4-9 – Please identify the simulation data/methodology model. 

b) Page 4-10 – Table 4-2, Round Trip Times – Explain / confirm how round trip 

times for the headways and throughput can be maintained with vehicle 

performance, dwell times, passenger loading, ATC safe train separation and 

guideway configuration as specified for a driverless automated system. 

c) Page 4-10, 3rd bullet – Explain the reference to TP-3.4.2.3 at least in 

summation form. 

d) Page 4-10, 4th bullet – Explain the specific “design passenger loading 

standard” used for this estimate. 


(5) Page 4-10, 4.1 Fleet Size, Step Four – Applying the Passenger Loading Standard 

a) Clarify “Table 4-3 applies Passenger loading standards to the peak 

demand…”- if it is the Comfort Load standard, then it should be so stated. 

b) Clarify “…to meet passenger demands”; if it is “pphpd” as stated in Table 4-3, 

then this should be clarified in the body of the plan. 

Resolution: Grantee had previously explained satisfactorily and complied. 

(6) Page 4-11, 4.1 Fleet Size, Step Five – Operating Fleet Requirement, Table 4-4, 

Minimum Peak Trains required –It is stated that 30 trains will be needed for Full 

Service Period (in 2019) to maintain 3 minute headways. Explain how this 

equates to the passenger capacity as shown in Table 4-5, System Passenger 

Capacity and in Table 3-3, Service Hours and Headways. While these 

calculations appear to be correct, there is a disconnect between the data shown. 


(7) Page 4-13, 4.1 Fleet Size: Step Six – grantee may want to consider gap trains as a 

viable option for operation between heavy boarding stations in the peak period; 

especially as an automated system, dependent upon location of yard access to the 

mainline and location of pocket storage tracks. 

Resolution: Grantee had previously explained satisfactorily and has complied. 




9

(8) Page 4-13, 4.1 Fleet Size: Step Seven – Spare Ratio – Explain the basis for the 

statement “The Project has required an initial spare vehicle ratio of 15% of the 

operating fleet.” This proposed OSR is low and of concern. 

(9) While it is recognized that there is no operating experience for the system, an 

analytical methodology or logic can be used to come up with the number of spare 

vehicles for repairs, inspections, overhauls, major damage, etc. Additionally, the 

analysis could also take into consideration spares ratio history from other systems 

such as Vancouver Skytrain or in Denmark with similar vehicle proposed for 

Honolulu. 


(10) Page 4-13, 4.1 Fleet Size: Step Seven – Spare Ratio – The statement on second 

line “…those additional vehicles above the peak operating fleet that are used to 

replace failed operating vehicles or…” is indicative of gap or reserve vehicles, not 

of spare vehicles; their number should be identified in Step Six Gap Trains. 


(11) Page 4-13, 4.1 Fleet Size: Step Eight – Total Fleet Demand – Per CSC, 80 

vehicles are being procured through 2019 (though not stated in this RFMP); and 

based upon the demand forecast information provided in Table 4-7, it would 

appear that the spare ratio in 2019 will be 25% or 22.5% (dependent upon 

whether the reserve train is included in the PVR). Please explain. 


(12) Page 4-13, 4.1 Fleet Size: Step Eight – Total Fleet Demand, Table 4-7 –As a 

minimum, two separate rows should be added, between Row 2 Total Peak 

Vehicles & Row 3 Total Fleet Size, to show the breakdown of maintenance 

spares and gap or reserve cars. 


(13) Page 4-13, 4.1 Fleet Size: Step Eight – Total Fleet Demand – Per CSC, 80 

vehicles are being procured (though not stated in this RFMP); however, Table 4-7 

shows 86 vehicles will be required in 2028; and based on Total Fleet Demand, six 

additional vehicles would need to be procured by approximately 2025. What 

mechanism exists or is planned for the purchase of six of these “one of a kind” 

vehicles, which could be quite expensive for low quantity procurement. 

Resolution: Grantee had previously revised the time frame and has complied. 

(14) Page 4-13, 4.2 Procurement 




10

a) First paragraph – Provide details in reference to “Core Systems Request for 

Proposal (BAFO #2)” with summary information for the vehicles (and for 

operations and maintenance); it could be provided in an appendix. 

b) Second paragraph – Shouldn’t “(…one spare train for all operating scenarios)” 

be included as part of the gap or reserve train and account for the PVR, rather 

than OSR 

c) Second paragraph – It is stated in 4 th paragraph that mileage per vehicle will be 

500,000 miles in five years – or 100,000 miles per year. Explain how the 

“average annual mileage to be minimized”. 

d) Fourth paragraph – This paragraph would seem more appropriate to be 

included in the next section titled “5 Maintenance Plan”. 


Section 5 Maintenance Plan 

(1) Page 5-1– A staffing plan or organization chart should be included showing how 

CSC will perform maintenance, and what oversight will exist for grantee over 

CSC. 

Resolution: Grantee has included a draft organization chart in this update and 

has complied. 

(2) Page 5-1– There is no mention or description of any system for the management 

of maintenance elements such as work orders; data collection and analysis; 

tracking of reliability, mean-time-to-repair, mean-time-between-failures; parts 

inventory; training; manuals; or other support functions. If they are addressed in 

the CSC proposal, as a minimum, they should be referenced in the RFMP and 

summary information could be provided in an appendix. 

Resolution: Grantee has only partially addressed and should expand in the next 

update; RFMP narrative acceptable at this time. 

(3) Page 5-1, 5.1 Train Failure Definitions 

a) Third line – Explain what will determine “extraordinary circumstances” and 

distinguish these from “critical safety failures”; and how these are identified 

utilizing CSC’s O&M contract with grantee oversight. 

b) Item 3 – Clarify “parted train detection”. 

c) It is readily apparent that safety seems to be a determining factor in handling 

train failures as stated. Provide a brief explanation of the relationship of 

grantee with the CSC, including safety certification and safety oversight 

issues. 


(4) Page 5-2, 5.2 Maintenance Strategy –This section appears to deal with 

unscheduled maintenance or in-service failures. While the maintenance levels 




11

identified are commendable, explain how this will be implemented through the 

CSC O&M contract. 

Resolution: Grantee has only partially addressed this comment; additional detail 

should be provided as policies and practices are developed in cooperation with 

the CSC and should be included in the next update; RFMP narrative is acceptable 

at this time. 

(5) Page 5-4, 5.3 Preventive Maintenance –Periodic and Mileage Based –This section 

will require considerable more detail and expansion as the CSC is awarded and 

vehicle design progresses. 

Resolution: Grantee has complied but additional detail should be provided as 

policies and practices are developed in cooperation with the CSC and should be 

included in the next update; RFMP narrative is acceptable at this time. 

(6) Page 5-4, 5.3 Preventive Maintenance –Light and Heavy Overhauls – 

a) The expected life of the vehicles should be stated and the number of overhauls 

to be performed, including the time it will take for a vehicle to undergo an 

overhaul. This would require some vehicles to be out of service, which should 

be reflected in the PVR and OSR. 

b) Page 5-4, Table 5-2 Preliminary Overhaul Plan –Non-vehicle action items are 

best removed from this table for purposes of the RFMP; and this table may 

best be suited for an appendix. Also, “Full O&M Period” and “Optional 

O&M Period” should be defined. 


(7) Page 5-8, 5.3 Preventive Maintenance – Other Subsystems –This section will 

need significant expansion as vehicle design progresses. 

Resolution: Grantee should include in the next update; RFMP narrative is 

acceptable at this time. 

(8) Page 5-8, 5.4 Service Mode and Reliability Measures –This section should be 

expanded to incorporate performance monitoring summary from the CSC O&M 

specifications. A summary of data monitoring including a Maintenance 

Management Information System (MMIS) should also be addressed here. 

Resolution: Grantee should include in the next update; RFMP narrative is 

acceptable at this time. 

(1) Page 6-1, 6.1 Functional Areas 

Section 6 Rail Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

a) State the storage yard capacity. Also, describe shop details such as pits, lifts, 

wheel truing equipment, wheel presses, overhead cranes, machine shops, 




12

electronic repair, parts storage, etc.; and shop capacity for PMs, overhauls, 

cleaning, inspections, etc. If the shop is still under design, it should be so 

stated and some design criteria or minimums should be included. 

b) Describe the functions and manpower that will be stationed in the 

maintenance facility, including the capacity of locker rooms, office areas, 

parking lots, etc. 


(2) Page 6-4, 6.2 MSF Vehicle Capacity 

a) It appears that the yard capacity is 56 vehicles, while the procurement in CSC 

is for 80 vehicles. Explain how the remaining 24 vehicles will be stored in 

non-revenue hours without impeding movement in the MSF. 

b) Storage on access tracks to the shop will hamper vehicle movement, even in 

an automated yard. Clarify if the access tracks will also be automated. 

c) Typically, maintenance tracks are not considered as part of the fleet storage 

capacity; explain what will be the philosophy or policy in this MSF. 





13

5.0 CONCLUSION 

The PMOC had conducted a review of grantee’s initial Rail Fleet Management Plan (RFMP) 

draft dated April 2011 to assess compliance with appropriate FTA Guidance and followed up 

with another review of the July 13, 2011 red-lined RFMP update. Since PMOC’s earlier reviews 

of the RFMP, this report addresses PMOC’s review of the most current red-lined RFMP Rev 01, 

March 2012 update provided by the grantee. 



Ratio (OSR) computation. The PMOC noted that grantee has complied with OP 37 guidance, the 

majority of the PMOC previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed, and that grantee 

has agreed to update the remaining open items in the next revision of the RFMP. Our responses 

in this report are primarily to enhance the RFMP as it progresses through the construction phase. 

It will then require additional details to ensure collection of needed data or monitoring of the 

defined processes. 

Through the CSC, the grantee is procuring 80 new “light” heavy rail vehicles to provide service 

through 2024; and the CSC Operations and Maintenance portion of the contract defines activities 

related to service operations, planned management & maintenance of the fleet, and also provides 

substantial information regarding service demand. 

The PMOC anticipates that the next revision of the RFMP would be available after the FFGA 

when the Core Systems Contractor begins its work in earnest (i.e. within one year of initial 

Notice to Proceed). That revision should address and/or provide additional detail on the 

following topics: 

• Service operations and vehicle demand forecasting 

• Planned fleet Maintenance practices and management staffing that will be provided 

through CSC 

• Planned use of Maintenance Statistics and Maintenance Strategy as provided through the 

CSC 

• MSF functionality and vehicle availability 

In addition to providing additional detail in the areas noted above, the grantee should address, in 

the next update of the RFMP, PMOC’s comments as annotated in this report as well as those in 

“Appendix B:OP 37, Appendix B FMP Checklist – Grantee Compliance” of the PMOC’s report. 

In conclusion, this red-lined draft RFMP (Rev.01 dated March 2012) complies with the FTA 

guidance. The PMOC would recommend that this RFMP update be accepted as a deliverable for 

the FFGA application. 

The PMOC also recommends that a workshop be conducted with the grantee to discuss the 

details needed in the next update of the RFMP to ensure compliance during implementation of 

the Project. 




14

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Acronym List 

APTA • American Public Transportation Association 

ATC • Automatic Train Control 

AWO • Empty Transit Vehicle Weight (Ready to run – in pounds) 

AW1 • Empty Transit Vehicle Weight plus passenger seated load 

AW2 • Empty Transit Vehicle Weight plus passenger seated and normal rated standing load 

AW3 • Empty Transit Vehicle Weight plus passenger seated and full rated standing load 

CFR • Code of Federal Regulations 

CSC • Core Systems Contract 

DB • Design-Build 

DBOM • Design-Build-Operate-Maintain 

DCS • Fire/Life Safety Committee 

FD • Final Design 

FFGA • Full Funding Grant Agreement 

FRA • Federal Railroad Administration 

FTA • Federal Transit Administration 

GEC • General Engineering Consultant 

MDBF • Mean Distance Between Failure 

MOW • Maintenance of Way 

MPH • Miles Per Hour 

MSF • Maintenance & Storage Facility 

MTTR • Mean Time To Repair 

O&M • Operations and Maintenance 

OP • Oversight Procedure 

OSR • Operating Spare Ratio 

PE • Preliminary Engineering 

PMOC • Project Management Oversight Consultant 

PVR • Peak Vehicle Requirement 

QA • Quality Assurance 

QC • Quality Control 

RFMP • Rail Fleet Management Plan 

ROW • Right of Way 

TOC • Table of Contents 

US/U.S. • United States 




15

Appendix B: OP 37, Appendix B FMP Checklist – Grantee Compliance 

Requirement 

PMOC Review Comments 

Review comments will indicate the following: 

Acceptable, Unacceptable, Acceptable with 

comment. 

Identify portions of the document that meet the 

criteria 

1 Grantee Document 

1A The FMP is conformed in accordance with 

Acceptable 

the grantee’s Document Control System. 

1B Each page identifies the Revision No. and the Acceptable 

date of the document. 

1C The date of the grantee’s submittal is 

Acceptable. 

clearly identified. 

1D The contents of the FMP properly reflect the Acceptable 

Table of Contents. 

2 PMOC review of Grantee’s fleet description 

Verify description of the makeup of the 

present fleet, including: 

2A The number and type of vehicles in service Not Applicable – New Start. 

2B Peak vehicle requirements (service period 

Acceptable – Section 4.1 Fleet Size. 

and make-up, e.g., standby vehicles) 

2C Address the spare ratio of vehicles, and the Acceptable – Section 4.1. 

rationale underlying that spare ratio 

2D Achieve optimal life expectancies Not applicable – New Start. 

2E Details of existing and planned vehicle 

Acceptable – Section 3.4. 

procurements 

2F Current and future equipment needs Acceptable – Section 4.1. 

2G Grantee in its selection and specification of 

vehicle equipment and systems has matched 

appropriate technology with the planned transit 

Acceptable – Validation of this requirement has 

been done for compliance with OP 38, through 

PMOC’s review and report. 

applications for best performance at the lowest 

cost. 

3 PMOC review of Grantee’s Operations and Maintenance strategy 

Verify that the Operations and 

3A 

Maintenance Strategy addresses: 

Operating policies and conditions (level of 

service requirements, vehicle failure definitions 

and actions) 

Acceptable at this time – Some information is 

provided in Section 5; additional detail 

commensurate with the Project progress to be 

provided in future updates. 

3B In detail the composition of facilities Acceptable – Section 6. 

3C Any rebuilds that extend the life expectancy of the 

equipment, any overhaul/rebuild programs; 

schedule to complete, effects on vehicle 

availability and useful life, etc., to the fleet 

3D 

3E 

The grantee has adequately defined the preventive 

maintenance and schedule established for the 

existing and procured/overhauled vehicle fleet 

Enable a transit operator to properly plan for 

and carry out the overall management of its 

entire fleet of vehicle 

Acceptable at this time – Strategy is provided in 

Section 5; additional detail commensurate with the 

Project progress to be provided in future updates. 

Acceptable at this time – Strategy is provided in 

Section 5; additional detail commensurate with the 


Acceptable at this time – Basic information is 

provided in Section 5; additional detail 


provided in future updates. 




16

Requirement 

3F Fleet operations (present and future) as 

described in the plan are substantially 

consistent with that adopted in the Record of 

Decision (if applicable) 

4 PMOC review of Grantee’s Management Capabilities 

Verify that the grantee’s management is 

competent and capable of providing leadership 

and direction on matters of: 

4A 

4B 

4C 

4D 

The requirements for peak and spare 

vehicles including schedule spares, 

maintenance spares, parts spares 

The requirements for support functions such 

as heavy maintenance, capital and operating 

parts inventory and information technology 

Strategies for acquisition of new vehicles 

or overhauling existing equipment and 

tradeoffs between them 

Strategies for maintenance and operations 

including reducing spare vehicles 

4E Strategies for reducing operating costs 

and increasing service reliability. 

4F The plan discusses the grantee’s reliability 

program, past performance and plans to improve 

reliability including profile monitoring and 

support of maintenance as well as failure rates 

and vehicles out-of-service as well as providing 

vehicle failure definitions and actions 

4G Grantee keeps a copy on file for review upon 

request updated from time to time as changes 

occur within the transit agency, acquisitions, 

replacement, rebuild/rehab, changes in 

headway or level of service, etc. 

4H Sufficiently complete in detail and analysis 

(Fleet plan or supporting documentation) to 

readily demonstrate (1) grantee’s ability to 

maintain and consistently improve the current 

level, operating costs, reliability and quality of 

revenue service for the years leading up to and 

following construction of the project; (the plan 

also provides.) 

4I The grantee's information system reliably 

provides needed operating and financial data 

such as current estimates of vehicle operating 

costs, reliability and life expectancy, for 

decision-making and performance review. 

4J The plan defines system and service expansions. Acceptable 

5 Project Impact Assessment 

Verify that critical system elements 

receive comprehensive assessment: 


Not Applicable – Record of Decision does not 

address details of fleet operations required in 

RFMP 

Acceptable at this time – Section 5 Maintenance 

Plan. Additional oversight detail commensurate 

with the Project progress to be provided in future 

updates. 

Acceptable – Section 4 Demand for Revenue 

Vehicles. 


Plan. Additional detail commensurate with the 


Not Applicable – New Start. 




Not Applicable – Since this is a New Start project, 

there is no operational history. 




Not Applicable – This is a New Starts Project, and 

there are no updates / changes to acquisitions, 

replacement, rebuilds / rehabs, headway or level of 

service, etc. 

Acceptable at this time – Additional detail for 

contract operations & maintenance commensurate 


updates. 

Acceptable at this time – Additional detail for 

contract operations & maintenance commensurate 


updates. 




17

5A 

5B 

5C 

5D 

5E 

Requirement 

The grantee’s existing transit service in terms 

of level of service, operating costs, reliability, 

quality and support functions, will not be 

degraded as a consequence of the design and 

either the manufacture of the equipment, or 

construction of the project 

The grantee will be able to provide adequate 

service to meet the transit demand for the 

years leading up to and following either the 

delivery of the equipment/facility or construction 

of the project 

The grantee can properly plan for and execute 

the overall management of its entire fleet of 

vehicles and related support functions and 

equipment, addressing all the reasonably 

foreseeable factors that are relevant to the 

determination of current and future equipment 

needs in light of demand for service 

Grantee estimates of costs, service levels, 

quality, or reliability are mechanically correct 

and complete, consistent with the granteedefined 

methodologies and free of any 

material inaccuracies or incomplete data. 

Grantee forecasts and schedule are also 

mechanically correct and complete, consistent 

with the plan scope and project scope adopted in 

the Record of Decision (if applicable) and the 

proposed Revenue Operations Date as well as free 


Acceptable – Grantee’s existing transit service is 

via bus; and upon review of the RFMP, it is 

PMOC’s opinion that grantee’s existing transit 

service will not be degraded “in terms of level of 

service and reliability”. 


provided; additional detail commensurate with the 

Project progress to be provided in future updates 

once AHJV provides more detailed input on RFMP 

to substantiate that the grantee “will be able to 

provide adequate service to meet the transit 

demand for the years leading up to and 

following” the design and construction of this 

project. 


provided; additional detail commensurate with the 

Project progress to be provided in future update to 

substantiate that the grantee “can properly plan for 

and execute the overall management of its entire 

fleet of vehicles and related support functions and 

equipment” for the years leading up to and 

following the design and construction of the 

project. 


provided; additional detail of grantee’s estimates of 

costs, quality, reliability, etc. commensurate with the 



provided; additional detail of grantee’s schedule 


provided in future updates once AHJV provides 

more detailed input on RFMP. 

of any material inaccuracies or incomplete data. 

6 PMOC’s review of Grantee’s Operations and Maintenance Plan Format 

Verify that the plan is consistent with FTA’s 

guidance specifically with respect to: 

6A Definition of terms Acceptable – Section 2. 

6B 

6C 

6D 

Description of existing system and expansion 

plans, both project and non-project related 

The Demand for Revenue Vehicles and 

Operating Spare Ratio have been calculated in 

conformance with FTA guidance 

The grantee has selected a sufficient time frame, 

(a minimum of 10 to 15 years) and compiled 

sufficient historical and empirical data from 

past and current fleet operations 

Acceptable 

Acceptable – Section 4. 

Acceptable 




18

Appendix C: OP 37, Appendix C FMP Table of Contents – Grantee Compliance 

Sample Fleet Management Plan 

Table of Contents 

In AA 

and/or 

Requesting 

Entry to 

PE 

In PE, 

Advanced 

PE, 

and/or 

Requesting 

entry to FD 

In FD 

and/or 

Requesting 

FFGA 

In Bid / 

Award 

and / or 

Construction 

Grantee 

Compliance 

Introduction ● ○ ○ ○ 

Overview of Plan ● ○ ○ 

Plan Timeframe ● ○ ○ 

Definition of Terms ● ○ ○ ○ 

Existing System ● ○ ○ ○ 

Description of current system ● ○ ○ ○ 

Inventory List ▲ ○ ○ ○ N/A 

Expansion Plan ▲ ● ○ ○ 

Demand for Revenue Vehicles ▲ ● ○ ○ 

Peak Passenger Demand ▲ ● ○ ○ 

Passenger Load Standards ▲ ● ○ ○ 

Vehicle Run Times ▲ ● ○ ○ 

Peak Vehicle Calculations ▲ ● ○ ○ 

Gap or Ready reserve 

vehicles 

▲ ● ○ ○ 

 

Spare Vehicle Calculation ▲ ● ○ ○ 

Total Sum of Vehicles 

required out of service 

▲ ● ○ ○ 

Supply of Revenue Vehicles ▲ ● ○ ○ 

Reconciliation of Demand vs. 

Supply 

▲ ● ○ ○ 

Existing and planned fleet 

procurements 

▲ ● ○ ○ 

Define overhaul / rebuild 

programs 

▲ ● ○ ○ 

 

Rebuild Schedules ▲ ● ○ ○ 

Vehicle Availability ▲ ● ○ ○ 

Useful Life ▲ ● ○ ○ 

Maintenance and Reliability ▲ ● ○ ○ 

Preventative Maintenance 

Program 

▲ ● ○ ○ 

 

Fleet Failure Rates ▲ ● ○ ○ N/A 

Revenue Vehicle Demand/Supply 

Balance 

▲ ● ○ ○ 

Comparison of Vehicle Demand 

and Supply for duration of plan 

▲ ● ○ ○ 

NOTE: ▲ – Preliminary information required; ● – Element to be completed; ○ – Element to be modified or 

augmented with additional information as necessary. 




19

Download - Honolulu Rail Transit Project

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?